HomeMy WebLinkAbout3989
RESOLUTION NO. 3 9 8 9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FOR A 236 LOT
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS AUBURN
FORTY WITHIN THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON
WHEREAS, Application No. PL T04-0009, dated December 16, 2004,
has been submitted to the City of Auburn, Washington, by Brian McCabe on
behalf of Investco Financial Corporation, requesting preliminary plat approval
for a 236 lot Single-Family Residential subdivision known as Auburn Forty; and
WHEREAS, said request referred to above was referred to the Hearing
Examiner for study and public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to staff review, the Hearing Examiner conducted a
public hearing to consider said application in the Council Chambers of the
Auburn City Hall on December 7, 2005, of which the Hearing Examiner
recommended approval of the rezone to PUD and approval of the preliminary
plat; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of January 17, 2006, the City Council
voted to conduct a closed record hearing on the Hearing Examiner's
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, a closed record hearing was held February 15, 2006, at
which time the City Council considered the Hearing Examiner's
Resolution No. 3989
February 27,2006
Page 1 of 3
recommendations and the material presented to the Hearing Examiner after
which the Council voted to approve Application No. PL T04-0009 with the
conditions recommended by the Hearing examiner and Staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are herewith approved and
incorporated in this Resolution.
Section 2. The request for preliminary plat approval for a 236 lot Single-
Family Residential subdivision known as Auburn Forty within the City of Auburn,
legally described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference, is hereby approved subject to the conditions as set forth in the
Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation attached
hereto.
Section 3. The Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon
passage and signatures hereon.
Resolution No. 3989
February 27, 2006
Page 2 of 3
Dated and Signed this (0{i\. day Of\f'(\ CYvCc.___ , 2006
ATTEST:
~ 11 'I
, , If? '
,i aiL/die? .J~
Danielle E. Daskam,
City Clerk
Resolution No. 3989
February 27,2006
Page 3 of 3
./
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 3989
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
In the Matter of the Applications of
NO. PUD04-0002
PL T04-0009
Brian McCabe, Investco
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATION
For Rezone, Planned Unit Development,
and Preliminary Plat
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
The Hearing Examiner recommends to the Auburn City Council that the requests for a rezone of
approximately 38.48 acres from R-2 Residential to Planned Unit Development, for approval of a
Planned Unit Development, and for preliminary plat approval for the Auburn Forty subdivision,
a 236-lot single-family residential subdivision, be APPROVED subject to conditions.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
Request
Investco, through Brian McCabe (Applicant), requests approval of a rezone, a Planned Unit
Development, and a preliminary plat for the Auburn Forty, a 236-lot single-family residential
subdivision. The subject property, totaling 38.48 acres, is located between the Green River and
the 4200-4300 block ofI Street NE.
Hearing Date
An open record hearing on the request was held before the City of Auburn Hearing Examiner on
December 7, 2005.
Testimonv
At the open record hearing, the following individuals presented testimony under oath:
1. Mr. Jeff Dixon, Planner, City of Auburn
2. Joseph Welsh, City Transportation Engineer
3. Jeff Mann, Applicant Representative, Apex Engineering
4. Dennis Hanberg, Applicant Representative, Apex Engineering
5, William Lynn, attorney representing the Applicant
6. Richard Hathaway, representative of the property to the south
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat - PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 1 of26
Exhibits
At the open record hearing, the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record:
Exhibit I
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit II
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
Exhibit 14
Exhibit 15
Exhibit 16
Exhibit 17
Exhibit 18
Exhibit 19
Exhibit 20
Exhibit 21
Exhibit 22
Exhibit 23
Exhibit 24
City of Auburn Staff Report, dated December 2,2005
Notice of Application
Notice of Public Hearing
Affidavit of Posting
Affidavit of Mailing
Confirmation of Receipt of Request to Publish Legal Notice
Final Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS), dated October 13,
2005
Final Staff Evaluation (supporting document to Final MDNS)
2001 Aerial Site Photograph
Sensitive Areas Report for the Kawasaki Site, from Watershed Dynamics, 7-12-
04, revised 3-24-05
Letter from Apex Engineering response to Completeness Letter (environmental
checklist application supplement), dated 3-25-05, including attachments
Figure I - Photos of Auburn Marketplace Pond
Figure 2 - Photos of open rail fences
Figure 3- aerial photo of existing site buildings
Auburn Forty PUD Revised Transportation Impact Analysis, from The Transpo
Group, dated March 2005
Auburn Forty- Supplemental Transportation Information, from The Transpo
Group, dated April 22, 2005
Letter Drainage Report: Preliminary Plat of Auburn Forty Storm Drainage, from
Apex Engineering, dated June 14,2005
Port of Seattle Master Plan Wetland Delineation Report of the Construction
Access and Staging Site Auburn Wetland Mitigation Project, Parametrix, dated
April 2003
SEP A Addendum Relating to the Auburn Wetland Mitigation Project, Port of
Seattle, dated June 2003
Final Construction Drawing Plan Set Port of Seattle, Wetland Mitigation
Construction Site, GRAOI-0004, Sheets n, CI-17, TEI-3, & Ll-15, Port of
Seattle, dated March 30, 2004
Conceptual Plans and Sections for I Street NE Storm Drainage, Apex
Engineering, Inc., dated July I, 2005
Preliminary Geotechnical Report Auburn Forty Plat, ABPB Consulting, LLC,
dated July 22, 2005
Conceptual Wetland Buffer Mitigation Plan, Investco, dated October 17,2005
Typical Setback and Building Envelopes - Diagrams (4 pages)
Auburn Forty PUD Conceptual Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Exhibit, Apex
Engineering, dated October 27,2005
Auburn Forty PUD Preliminary Plat, Conceptual Utility Plan, Apex Engineering,
dated October 20, 2005
Auburn Forty PUD Preliminary Plat, Sight Distance Triangle Exhibit Sheets I and
2 of2, Apex Engineering, dated October 27, 2005
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/PreIiminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 2 of26
Exhibit 25
Exhibit 26
Exhibit 27
Exhibit 28
Exhibit 29
Exhibit 30
Exhibit 31
Exhibit 31
Exhibit 32
Exhibit 33
Exhibit 34
Exhibit 35
Exhibit 36
Exhibit 37
Exhibit 38
Exhibit 39
Exhibit 40
Exhibit 41
Exhibit 42
Exhibit 43
Exhibit 44
Exhibit 45
Exhibit 46
Exhibit 47
Exhibit 48
Exhibit 49
Auburn Forty PUD, I Street NE Alignment Exhibit, Apex Engineering, dated
October 17, 2005
Preliminary Landscape Plan Auburn Forty PUD, Bradley Design Group, dated
October 31, 2005
Preliminary Landscape (Stormwater Pond) Cross Sections, Bradley Design
Group, dated October 31, 2005
Auburn Forty PUD Pond Landscape Cross Section Exhibit, Apex Engineering,
dated November 30, 2005
Completed Preliminary Plat Application Form
Auburn Forty PUD Application (Narrative), undated
Auburn Forty Preliminary Plat and PUD Conceptual Design Guidelines, undated
REVISED Auburn Forty Preliminary Plat and PUD Conceptual Design
Guidelines, undated
REVISED The City of Auburn Planned Unit Development Auburn Forty
Preliminary Plat and PUD Analysis of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Public
Benefits and Open Space Criteria, dated November 4, 2005
Figure 3 Road Layout and Classification under Preferred Alternative for the NE
AubumlRobertson Properties Special Area Plan, Northeast AubumlRobertson
Properties Final EIS, City of Auburn, dated July 2004
Letter from Jim Kelly, Parametrix, to Ralph Wessels, Port of Seattle re: Protective
Buffers at the Auburn (Port of Seattle) Mitigation Site, dated November 7, 2003
REVISED Preliminary Plat Auburn Forty PUD Sheets I & 2 of2, Apex
Engineering, final revision dated November 30, 2005
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Auburn North Forty
(CC&Rs),10-28-05
Exhibit B (to CC&Rs) The Auburn North Forty Homeowners' Association
Architectural Guidelines, dated October 28, 2005
Exhibit B (to CC&Rs) The Auburn North Forty Homeowners' Association
Architectural Guidelines, revised and received 11-30-05
The Auburn North Forty Homeowners' Association Architectural Guidelines for
the Construction of New Homes, received November 30, 2005
E-mail from Sean Martin to Jeff Dixon transmitting sign detail, dated December
17,2004
Letter from Jeffrey Mann of Apex Engineering re: Waiver of Regulatory
Timeframes, dated November 30, 2005
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Northeast AubumlRobertson Properties
Special Area Plan, Auburn W A, City of Auburn, February 2004 (CD version)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Northeast AubumlRobertson Properties
Special Area Plan, Auburn W A, City of Auburn, July 2004 (CD version)
Auburn Forty Planned Unit Development; Auburn Hearing Examiner Public
Hearing December 7, 2005
Auburn Forty PUD Rezone Exhibit, Investco Financial, dated October 28,2005
Projected Profile of the Development of King County Parcel 000400-0005
Lakeland Hills PDD Landscape Amenities
Auburn Forty PUD and Preliminary Plat; Comparison of Benefits of the PUD
Typical Storm Retention Facilities
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 3 of 26
Exhibit 50
Exhibit 51
Exhibit 52
Exhibit 53
Exhibit 54
Exhibit 55
Exhibit 56
Preliminary Landscape Plan Auburn Forty PUD, Investco Financial Corp., I
Street NE, Auburn, W A; L-I of 1, dated December 7, 2005
Preliminary Landscape Cross Sections Auburn Forty PUD, Investco Financial
Corp., I Street NE, Auburn, W A; L-2 of2, dated December 7, 2005
Pond F Perspective
Pond A Perspective
Informal Open Space; Lakeland Hills South PUD "Verona"; Intersection of 67th
Street & Elizabeth Ave SE, dated December 5, 2005
Letter from Apex Engineering RE: Auburn Forty - Applicant comments to City's
staff report regarding application nos, PUD04-000l and PLT04-0009, File
#27830/0, dated December 7, 2005
Memorandum from The Transpo Group Subject regarding Auburn Forty Traffic
Impact Analysis Consistency, dated December 7, 2005
Polygon Floor Plans (admitted for illustrative purposes)
OakRidge Homes Floor Plans (admitted for illustrative purposes)
Memorandum from Jeff Dixon to the Hearing Examiner, regarding the City's
response to the Applicant's updatt::d exhibits, dated December 21, 20051
Upon consideration of the testimony and exhibits submitted at the open record hearing, the
Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings and Conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. The Applicant requests approval of a rezone, a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and a
preliminary plat to develop "The Auburn Forty," a 236-lot single-family residential
subdivision. The 38.48-acre subject property is located between the Green River and the
4200-4300 block ofI Street NE in Auburn, Washington.2 Exhibit 1, Staff Report page 1;
Exhibits 29 and 30; Testimony of Mr. Mann; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
2. The City of Auburn processes PUD applications in several steps. The first step requires
approval of a contract rezone of the subject property from its existing zoning designation
to a PUD designation. The contract rezone specifies the land use, the density, the number
and types of dwelling units, the amount and types of open space, and the responsibilities
ofthe Applicant. In the present case, the application for preliminary plat approval has
been processed simultaneously with the PUD application. If the PUD is approved, the
next steps would be City approval of construction plans, installation of infrastructure by
the Applicant, and then application for final plat approval. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page
5.
1 At the public hearing, the Applicant submitted several updated versions of previously submitted documents, in
addition to several new exhibits. The Hearing Examiner allowed the City time to prepare a response to the
additional exhibits after review, which the City submitted as Exhibit 56 on December 21, 2005. The record closed
on that date. The parties agreed to extend the time for preparation ofthe Hearing Examiner's written decision until
January 6, 2006,
2 The legal description of the subject property is a portion of Section 31, Township 22 North, Range 5 East, W.M.,
King County, Washington; also known as Parcel No. 0004200004. The full legal description ofthe site is in the
record at Exhibit 29, Exhibit 29, Preliminary Plat Application.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 40f26
3. The area surrounding the subject property was annexed to the City in 1970, Considered
an "Auburn Gateway," it has remained largely undeveloped until recent market
conditions in the Puget Sound region have begun to bring development to the area.
Abutting the northeast portion of the subject property is a 67-acre wetland/in-kind habitat
creation area owned by the Port of Seattle and used for the purpose of compensating for
unavoidable impacts from development of the third runway project at SeaTac Airport.
Exhibit 16, SEP A Addendum Relating to the Auburn Wetland Mitigation Project, Port of
Seattle, June 2003. The Port of Seattle purchased an additional 35-acre parcel abutting
the northwest corner of the subject property for the purpose of providing access to its
wetland mitigation site. Other than wetland creation and access-related improvements,
both of the Port's parcels will remain undeveloped. Also to the north ofthe subject
property is the recently approved River Sand PUD, which will create 172 single-family
residential lots and 115 multifamily units on approximately 40 acres north of the subject
property. The River Sand property is on the south side of South 277th Street
approximately 20 feet east of the undeveloped I Street NE right-of-way. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 14; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
4. An undeveloped section ofI Street NE forms the western site boundary. Properties
across I Street NE have Heavy Commercial (C3) and Multi-Family Residential (R-4)
zoning and land use designations. There is a childcare facility across I Street NE. The R-
2 zoned property south of the site is vacant. It has Single Family Residential and High
Density Residential land use designations. Immediately east of the site is a swath of
vacant, unincorporated Green River shoreline owned by King County. Property west of
the river has an R-2 zoning designation and an Open Space land use designation. Exhibit
1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 9, Aerial Site Photograph.
5, Critical areas found to exist on-site include the 100-year floodplain of the Green River
and buffers of off-site wetlands and river shoreline. No wetlands exist on-site; however,
the buffers of two off-site Port of Seattle wetlands extend into the subject property along
the northern plat boundary. The Applicant proposes a vegetation planting plan for Tracts
X, Y, and the northwestern portion of Tract B to minimize impacts of the trail on the
wetland buffer. Impacts to the on- and off-site critical areas were considered in the City's
environmental threshold determination. Required mitigation measures relating to critical
areas include additional geotechnical study, preparation of a final wetland buffer
enhancement plan, and construction of floodplain compensation in the event that
floodplain storage capacity is impacted by the project. Exhibit 20. Conceptual Wetland
Buffer Mitigation Plan, Investco; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pageJO; Exhibit 7, MDNS. The
Applicant's preliminary geotechnical study concluded the project site is suitable for.the
proposed development. Exhibit 19, Preliminary Geotechnical Report Auburn Forty Plat,
ABPB Consulting, LLe.
6. The proposed development would create 236 single-family residential lots and 25 tracts
in three phases. Phase I would include development of the central one-third of the site,
containing 88 lots, and the sanitary pump station in proposed Tract K adjacent to the
southern plat boundary. Phase II would include the 70 lots closest to I Street NE, and
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 5 of26
Phase III would include the remaining 78 proposed lots closest to the Green River. The
Applicant intends to request three separate final plat approvals, No phasing is proposed
for infrastructure improvements; the Applicant proposes to install all roads and utilities
prior to requesting final plat approval on any of the three phases. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,
pages 4-5; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
7. The subject property has had a zoning designation of Single-Family Residential (R-2)
since 1987 when the City adopted its zoning ordinance. It is developed with a single-
family residence and agricultural buildings that would not be retained if the proposal
were approved. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Testimony of Mr. Dixon. Development
standards of the R-2 district require a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, with a
minimum lot width of60 feet. ACC 18.14.040.
8. Recent market trends have encouraged the creation of residential lots smaller than those
required by the R-2 zoning district. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 14; Testimony of Mr.
Mann. The Applicant requested a rezone from R-2 to the PUD zoning district to allow an
enhanced, more flexible site design. Exhibit 29, Preliminary Plat Application; Exhibit
30, Auburn Forty PUD Application Narrative.
9. PUDs are permitted on parcels of at least ten acres within all areas designated as
residential by the City's Comprehensive Plan (except for areas designated as "Rural
Residential"). ACC 18.69.040. Pursuant to the City Code, "[t]he purpose ofa [PUD]
district is to offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through innovative and alternative
development standards. A PUD district also allows for a greater range of residential
development scenarios, provides for internal transfers of density, and may result in more
dwelling units than may be realized by using the existing development standards. In
exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City requires the PUD to result in a
significantly higher quality development, generate more public benefit, and be a more
sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of standard zoning or
subdivision procedures." ACC 18.69.010.
10, The City's Comprehensive Plan Map was updated in 1995 to be consistent with the
Washington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36,70B. The subject property has two
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations. The western 5.47 acres ofthe site, adjacent
to I Street NE, are designated High Density Residential, and the eastern 33.01 acres, near
the Green River, are designated Single Family Residential. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page
2. "High Density Residential" areas may be developed with up to 18 units per acre.
"Single Family Residential" areas may contain up to six units per acre.] Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, pages 6, 13.
3 The site is within an area designated by the City's Comprehensive Plan as a "NE Auburn Special Plan Area."
Several property owners in the area are in the process of developing a master plan addressing I Street
alignment/design, stonndrainage and utilities, land use types and densities, financing of required infrastructure, and
the Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation project. Recent developments in the vicinity, including the Port of Seattle's
wetland mitigation project and the approval of the River Sand PUD, have removed the uncertainty regarding the
development future of much of the NE Auburn Special Plan Area. City Planning Staff anticipates that the Auburn
40 property will be excluded from the Special Plan Area when the Comprehensive Plan Map is amended in
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 60f26
II. The subject property contains no "unbuildable areas" and therefore, under the PUD
provisions, could be divided to contain up to 296 lots.4 The Applicant proposes 236 lots,
The proposed density is 6.13 units per acre. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6; Exhibit 29,
Preliminary Plat Applicalion; Exhibit 35, Site Plan.
12. The Applicant proposes to develop only detached and zero setback lots,S PUD lot size
standards vary by Comprehensive Plan land use designation and by lot type. "High
Density Residential" areas require a minimum lot size of 2,400 square feet for detached
single-family residential uses and for zero lot line lots. "Single Family Residential" areas
require minimum lots sizes of3,600 square feet for detached lots and 2,700 square feet
for zero setback lots, Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 6-7. All lots in Phase II (Lots 1-36
and 203-236) and all "alley loaded" lots in Phases I and III would be zero setback lots.6
All other lots would be detached lots. All proposed lots satisfy the minimum PUD lot
size requirements.? Exhibit 35, Site Plan; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 7.
13. The Applicant representative testified that the use of the flexible PUD development
standards would allow the Applicant to provide more affordable housing opportunities
for a broader economic range of potential buyers. The resulting mixture of diverse
housing types creates a "streetscape" with aesthetic value, which according to the
Applicant cannot be derived from traditional subdivision layouts. Testimony of Mr.
Mann; Exhibit 32, The City of Auburn Planned Unit Development Auburn Forty
Preliminary Plat and PUD Analysis of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Public Benefits
and Open Space Criteria.
14. PUDs are required to set aside a minimum of 20% oftheir total buildable area as open
space. ACC 18.69.080. The project, at 38.48 acres, must provide a minimum of 7.69
acres in open space. The Applicant proposes to set aside 7.79 acres of open space (20.2%
of the total site area) in the following tracts:
conjunction with the completed development ofthe Port of Seattle properties. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 5;
Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
4 The 5.47-acre "High Density Residential" designated portion of the site could contain up to 98 dwelling units. The
33.01-acre "Single Family Residential" designated portion ofthe site could contain up to 198 dwelling units.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6.
, "Detached lots" are those on which the structure is set back from all lot lines. "Zero setback lots" are those on
which the structure is not setback from one lot line and is not attached to other structures on adjoining lots, ACC
18. 69. 030(E).
6 Alley loaded lots are those that have vehicle access only to the rear of the lot from an alley.
7 For a depiction of typical setback envelopes, please see Exhibit 21, Typical Setback and Building Envelopes-
Diagrams.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUDIPreJiminary Plat- PLT04-0009lPUD04-0002
page 70f26
Publicly Owned:
Tracts A & F Enhanced storm water facilities along north plat boundary
Tract B A trail along the north plat boundary connecting I Street NE to the
Green River parkway
Parkland to be dedicated to the City and developed with
recreational equipment
Open space/wetland buffer along north central plat boundary
Open space
Tract E
Tract X
Tract Y
Privately Owned by the Homeowners' Association:
II Tracts Proposed for general open space: Tracts G, I, J, Q, R, S, T, V, W,
DD & EE
Landscaped entrance sign
Enhanced open space to ensure project satisfies sight distance
standards
Tract N
Tract U
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 7-8; Exhibit 35, Site Plan.
15. City Planning Staff determined that Tract DD is not suitable for designation as open
space due to its size and its perpendicular orientation to the adjacent trail in Tract B.
Staff opined that most project residents would consider Tract DD part of the adjoining
lot. Staff noted that the project would satisfy the PUD requirement for 20% open space
dedication even if Tract DD were excluded from proposed open space. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 15; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 56, Memorandum from Jeff Dixon to
the Hearing Examiner, regarding the City's response to the Applicant's updated exhibits,
dated December 21,2005. The Applicant contends that Tract DD's location adjacent to
the trail in Tract B (regardless of its perpendicular rather than contiguous orientation), in
addition to the potential view corridor into the Port of Seattle's wetland mitigation project
to the north, particularly recommend the use of Tract DD as open space. Exhibit 53,
Letter from Apex Engineering RE: Auburn Forty - Applicant comments to City's staff
report regarding application nos. PUD04-0001 and PLT04-0009; Testimony of Mr.
Mann.
16. City Planning Staff stated that Tract U, designated as open space to ensure sight distance
standards are met, must be dedicated to the City as right-of-way for I Street NE. Exhibit
1. Staff Report, page 8,
17. The City's Park and Recreation Plan (as incorporated by the Subdivision Code) requires
that for every 1,000 proposed residents, development must dedicate 6.03 acres of
unimproved parkland to the City. ACC 17.12.260. The project must dedicate a minimum
00,99 acres ofland to the City for public parklands.8 The project would include that
dedication of 4.18 acres consisting of Tracts Band E as public parklands. The Applicant
8 Refer to the Staff Report for the complete calculation of required parkland dedication. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,
page 8.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 80f26
proposes to install play equipment and trail improvements in the 3.2-acre Tract E public
park concurrent with plat development as public park amenities for residents of the PUD.
The existing stand of mature trees within the Shoreline Jurisdiction in Tract E would be
retained. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit 35, Site Plan; Exhibit 32, Revised
Analysis of PUD Benefits.
18, PUDs are required to promote pedestrian circulation. The project would enhance
pedestrian safety and movement by continuing the I Street NE sidewalk along the
property's frontage, by providing sidewalks on both sides of all internal streets, and by
providing a public trail connecting I Street NE with the Green River parkway. The City
Parks and Recreation Department requested the east-west pedestrian trail (located in
Tract B) to create a dedicated public access point to the future north-south Green River
Trail, that the City plans to develop along the river's west bank as an important
recreational and transportation resource. The proposed PUD would also provide
connections to the public park to be located in Tract E via the sidewalks along the
internal plat road adjacent to the project's east boundary. The project is consistent with
the 2005 Park and Recreation Plan and the Non-Motorized Plan. Exhibit 35, Site Plan;
Exhibit 1. Staff Report, pages 11, 17; Testimony of Mr. Mann; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
19. Despite the site's long, narrow configuration, the proposal would promote pedestrian
circulation because it doesn't contain excessive lengths of straight internal streets,
thereby controlling vehicle speed. In order to further encourage vehicle speeds consistent
with pedestrian safety, the City Engineer requested that traffic-calming devices be
required at the time of final roadway design. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Testimony
of Mr. Dixon.
20. The subject property is adjacent to an undeveloped portion of I Street NE. The Applicant
proposes to provide access to the site by improving the site's I Street NE frontage to City
standards for minor arterial roads. In order to do so, the Applicant must dedicate right-
of-way to the City, including Tracts C and M. Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 18; Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 8; Exhibit 35, Site Plan. The project would have 571.3 feet of frontage.
Because ofthe proximity of existing accesses on adjacent properties, 571.3 feet of
frontage is not sufficient to allow more than one access point into the proj ect from I
Street NE consistent with the City's intersection separation standards. Exhibit 35, Site
Plan; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 12, Auburn Forty
PUD Revised Transportation Impact Analysis, The Transpo Group; Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 11,
21. Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-13 requires developments with more than 75 dwelling
units to provide two access points. The same policy prohibits the creation of dead end
roads longer than 600 feet Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
Surrounded by the Green River to the east, permanently protected wetland property to the
north, and undeveloped private property to the south, the subject property can only
provide access along its western border on I Street NE. South of the site, I Street NE
connects to public roads via 40th Street NE. North of the site, I Street NE connects to
public roads via 45th Street NE. Both 40th and 45th Streets connect to Auburn Way North.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 RezonelPUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 9 of26
The Applicant must extend off-site improvements on I Street NE to both 40th and 45th
Streets to comply with City road standards and policies requiring multiple access points.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 9, Aerial Site
Photograph. Providing north and south traffic access routes to the plat entrance would
also have the benefit of distributing traffic more evenly through the City's street network.
Exhibit 54, Memorandum from The Transpo Group Subject regarding Auburn Forty
Traffic Impact Analysis Consistency. The Applicant proposes to construct I Street NE
north to 45th Street and south to 40th Street with the first phase of development. Exhibit
54, Memorandumfrom The Transpo Group Subject regarding Auburn Forty Traffic
Impact Analysis Consistency.
22. The undeveloped I Street NE right-of-way from the site north to 45th Street NE has been
the subject of several recent studies done in conjunction with the Port of Seattle wetland
project. The City and the Port of Seattle are currently engaged in negotiations regarding
vacation of the right-of-way. The City anticipates that the right-of-way exchange would
be concluded early in 2006. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 11-12; Testimony of Mr.
Dixon.
23. The primary internal plat road connecting to I Street NE would be developed to
Residential Collector standards for the length of Phase 1. The residential collector street
would be stubbed to the site's south boundary between Phases I and II to provide for
future connectivity. Immediately east of the boUndary between Phases I and II, the
primary plat road would become a local residential street throughout Phases II and III and
would stub to the site's south boundary in two locations, once at the boundary between
Phases II and III, and once at the east end of the project, adjacent to Tract E. Notice of
the future extensions of on-site dead-end roads must be noted on the face of the final plat
and posted at the road stub locations, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-13.
Exhibit 35, Site Plan; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 11; Exhibit 13, Auburn Forty-
Supplemental Transportation Information, The Transpo Group.
24. Despite its limited frontage on I Street NE, the project must still provide two points of
access internal to the site in order to comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy TR-13,
City Planning Staff testified that the purpose ofthe dual access requirement is to provide
adequate emergency access to developments of greater than 75 lots. The Applicant
proposes to develop the plat's internal residential collector access street as a boulevard
with two 20-foot lanes separated by a landscaped median. The 20-foot lanes would
extend east within the plat to a point within Phase III such that the widened road would
serye all lots within the PUD except for 75. Staff testified that the divided boulevard
would provide two lanes for emergency vehicle access. The City accepted the proposed
divided boulevard in satisfaction of the dual access requirement. If and when the
property to the south develops, three additional access points would be available, Exhibit
56, Memorandum from Jeff Dixon to the Hearing Examiner, dated December 21, 2005;
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 12; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
25, Within the western one-third of the site, the proposed internal road network consists of
branching "T" intersections to the north and south from the primary residential collector
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone!PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 10 of26
entrance road. The eastern two-thirds of the site would contain looped roadways
interconnected with public 20-foot-wide alleys. All roads within the plat would be
dedicated as public roadways. Seventeen lots would have access from shared private
access tracts, as follows: Tract D (Lots 42-44); Tract H (Lots125-127); Tract L (Lots
134-136); Tract 0 (Lots 10-13); and Tract P (Lots 27-30). The private access tracts
would be owned by the Homeowners' Association. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8;
Exhibit 35, Site Plan.
26, The Applicant requests deviations from four City Public Works Design and Construction
Standards, including the following:
. A deviation from the City's local residential street standard to allow the
landscape strip to interyene between the sidewalk and curb on both sides of
the streets, rather than on only one side;
. A deviation from the City's residential collector street standard to allow a
landscaped boulevard section for the Residential Collector Street;
. A deviation for road radii for internal streets at seven locations; and
. A deviation to allow the intersection spacing between local residential
streets and alleys (treated as local residential streets) to be closer than the
design standard separation of 125 feet.
City Public Works Staff reviewed the deviation requests and determined they are
supported and approvable; however, approval of the requested deviations is deferred to
ensure that all required project modifications are considered. Exhibit 1, Staff Report,
page 6; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
27. The Applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by The Transpo
Group. The TIA indicated that the project would generate approximately 2,328 average
daily trips, including 236 weekday PM peak hour trips.9 Exhibit 12, Auburn Forty PUD
Revised Transportation Impact Analysis, The Transpo Group, March 2005. According to
the Applicant's transportation consultant, the intersection of the plan entrance and I Street
NE would operate a Level Of Service (LOS) B or better during peak hours, satisfying
City standards. Exhibit 54, Memorandum from The Transpo Group.
28. The anticipated project trips combined with the new trips expected to be generated by
other "pipeline" projects, i.e. River Sand PUD, would degrade traffic movements at the
existing intersection of 45th Street NE and Auburn Way North to LOS E, a condition
requiring mitigation. A traffic signal warrant analysis performed by the City revealed that
post-development operations at the intersection would warrant signalization. A condition
ofMDNS approval requires the Applicant to contribute a 25% share towards the future
9 The TIA review was based on 240 new lots; the Applicant proposes 236 lots. Because the TIA documented the
traffic impacts of a slightly larger proposal, its results adequately address the impacts attributable to the current
proposal. Exhibit 54, Memorandumfrom The Transpo Group Subject regarding Auburn Forty Traffic Impact
Analysis Consistency, dated December 7. 2005.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 11 of26
signalization ofthe intersection. No other mitigation was requested for off-site traffic
impacts. Exhibit 7, MDNS, pages 5 and i9; Exhibit i, Staff Report, page i2; Exhibit i2,
Auburn Forty PUD Revised Transportation impact Analysis.
29. City of Kent schools would serye the project. The project's impacts to schools would be
mitigated by the payment of school impact fees to the Kent School District. The City of
Auburn is authorized by ordinance to collect school impact fees on behalf of Kent. The
sidewalks provided along the internal plat streets would provide safe walking routes for
school children within the plat to a bus stop that would be located on I Street NE. Due to
the Kent School District's policy of not permitting school buses to enter subdivisions, a
bus stop would be located on I Street NE. Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 6; Exhibit i, Staff
Report, page 13; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
30. The Applicant's submittals indicate that approximately 35% of the site would be covered
by new imperyious surfaces at full build out, generating new stormwater runoff. The
Applicant commissioned a preliminary surface water report and engineering from Apex
Engineering Inc. A stormpond in Tract F would collect and detain runoff from the
eastern two-thirds of the plat. The runoff would be treated using water quality best
management practices and released into the existing Port of Seattle wetlands north of the
site via level spreaders or other means "to mimic natural sheet flow" to and across the
Port of Seattle property. Exhibit i4, page i. In addition, the Applicant proposes to install
a bypass storm conveyance pipe from the south end of the plat to the level spreaders in
Tract F to maintain the existing natural flow from the approximately 80 acres south of the
subject property to the Port's existing wetlands. A second storm pond in Tract A would
collect and treat runoff from new imperyious surfaces in the eastern one-third of the
project and from the I Street NE improvements. The pond in Tract A has been sized to
collect and treat post-development runoff volumes for the sub-basin before conveying it
into an existing ditch system that flows north through an area of unincorporated King
County and eventually into the Green River. Exhibit 7, MDNS, pages 2-3; Exhibit i4,
Letter Drainage Report, Apex Engineering inc.; Testimony of Mr. Mann.
31. The Applicant submitted plans depicting proposed stormponds that generally satisfy City
stormwater management standards,1O Exhibit 28, Auburn Forty PUD Pond Landscape
Cross Section Exhibit, Apex Engineering, dated November 30, 2005. Minor
modifications to pond designs may still be required during civil plan review. Testimony
of Mr. Dixon. Comprehensive Plan Policy UD-6 promotes stormdrainage facilities that
"incorporate high standards of design to enhance the appearance of a site, preclude the
need for security fencing, and serye as an amenity." At hearing, Applicant
representatives described in detail the manner in which the Applicant proposes to create
storm ponds that not only satisfy City stormwater management design standards, but also
provide an aesthetic amenity to the plat and the general public. The Applicant submitted
conceptual drawings and photographs of existing storm ponds to illustrate the intended
10 The November 30, 2005 plans (Exhibit 28) are revisions of the proposed storm pond designs for Tracts A and F
submitted in the October 31,2005 Preliminary Landscape/Stormwater Pond Cross Sections, which did not comply
with City design standards. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 15; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 12 of26
aesthetic contribution that would be made by the proposed stormponds. Testimony of Mr.
Hanberg; Exhibit 28, Auburn Forty PUD Pond Landscape Cross Section Exhibit, Apex
Engineering; Exhibit 49, photographs of existing off-site ponds; Exhibit 51, Conceptual
Depictions of proposed ponds; Exhibit 32, Revised Analysis of PUD Benefits.
32. Management of the stormwater runoff from the proposed development was addressed
during the City's environmental review of the project Compliance with the mitigation
measures imposed on the project through the City's environmental threshold
determination would ensure that there would be no adverse impacts to the environment or
surrounding properties. Exhibit 7, MDNS; Testimony of Mr, Dixon.
33. The Applicant proposes to extend City of Auburn water to the project To do so, the
Applicant must construct on- and off-site water extension projects consistent with
Comprehensive Water Plan and Design and Construction Standards. Prior to final plat
approval, the Applicant must install dual connections to the water system, including one
connection to the west in the vicinity of King County Parcel No. 000400-01117 and
another connection within the I Street NE right-of-way south to the vicinity of Parcel No.
000400-0113. Specific parameters for water line extension were addressed in MDNS
Condition 12. Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 6; Testimony of Mr. Dixon,
34. Currently, no sewer seryice extends to the site. City sewer policies prioritize gravity
systems as the most cost-effective means of providing sanitary sewer seryice; however,
pressure systems are allowed when gravity systems are impractical or cost-prohibitive,
The Applicant submitted information justifYing the need for a pressure system, Exhibit 7,
MDNS, page 6. The Applicant proposes to construct a sewer pump station in Tract K to
serye the entire development. The proposed central location of the pump station would
minimize the depth of the wet wells and increase system efficiency. The sewer pump
station would be sized to serye the undeveloped property south of the site in addition to
the proposed project The Applicant anticipates latecomers' agreements from other
properties in the general area, The pump station would be dedicated to the City and
operated as a municipal utility. Exhibit 22, Auburn Forty PUD Conceptual Sanitary
Sewer Lift Station Exhibit, Apex Engineering; Testimony of Mr. Mann; Testimony of Mr.
Dixon,
35. Final design ofthe pump station must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
grading or construction permit issuance. Until the final pump station design is
established, it is not known how large Tract K will need to be to contain the facility.
Because the project proposes to place a sewer pump station adjacent to residential
development, Tract K needs to be large enough to accommodate various screening and
mitigation measures required by the MDNS. In the event that Tract K must be enlarged
to accommodate the pump station, adjacent Tract EE may need to be reduced in area.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Exhibit 7, MDNS, page 19.
36. PUDs must provide efficient public facilities, consistent with City standards that do not
result in higher public operational costs than would be incurred by traditional
subdivision. ACC 18.69. 090(B). City Planning Staff testified that the proposed layout of
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 13 of26
the sanitary sewer force main leading from the pump station contains too many bends that
would contribute to increased friction in the pipe and result in head loss, forcing the
pump motors to work harder. At the hearing, Staff requested at hearing that the location
of sanitary sewer force main be revised within currently proposed rights-of-way to
produce a more efficient system and requested that the force main revision be required as
a condition of approval. Exhibit 23, Auburn Forty PUD Preliminary Plat, Conceptual
Utility Plan, Apex Engineering; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 16; Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
The Applicant representative testified that the requested revisions can be accomplished
by redesigning the path of the force main within the plat's north-most internal road,
Testimony of Mr. Mann.
37. A Homeowners' Association is proposed to maintain private open spaces and access
tracts not dedicated to the City. The Applicant submitted a Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) proposed to govern the required maintenance of
private open spaces and tracts. Exhibit 3U, Auburn Forty PUD Application (Narrative),
undated; Exhibit 36, CC&Rs. The CC&Rs, a legal instrument for permanent
maintenance of community facilities, would be subject to review and approval prior to
final plat approval. Exhibit 31, REVISED Auburn Forty Preliminary Plat and PUD
Conceptual Design Guidelines; Exhibit 56. Memorandum from Jeff Dixon to the Hearing
Examiner.
38. Proposed PUDs must be consistent with required design standards and demonstrate
design continuity of structures in order to achieve the PUD's stated purpose of "enhanced
design." ACC 18.69.080, To address this requirement, the Applicant submitted proposed
Homeowners' Association Architectural Guidelines and CC&Rs for the development.
Exhibit 36; Exhibit 37; Exhibit 38; Exhibit 39. City Planning Staff stated that while these
documents present a general intent to comply with the City's design requirements, the
documents primarily address the design review process by the Homeowners' Association.
Staff recommended revisions to the proposed CC&Rs prior to final plat approval to
address required design specifications, Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 10; Testimony of
Mr. Dixon.
39, The Applicant submitted an updated preliminary landscape plan, prepared by the Bradley
Design Group, to address design features including street trees, landscaping, and signage.
Exhibit 50, Preliminary Landscape Plan Auburn Forty PUD, Bradley Design Group,
dated December 7, 2005. Photographic examples oflandscaping amenities similar to
those proposed were submitted for illustrative purposes. Exhibit 47, Lakeland Hills PDD
Landscape Amenities. The Applicant proposes a single standing monument sign to be
placed at a landscaped plat entrance in Tract N. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 8; Exhibit
Forty, E-mail from Sean Martin to Jeff Dixon transmitting dated December 17, 2004
transmitting sign detail. City Planning Staff noted that Tract Y is depicted on the revised
plan as containing areas oflawn, which would not be consistent with the tract's intended
purpose as a wetland buffer. To ensure protection ofthe wetland buffer, Staff requested
that Tracts X and Y be protected by a native growth protection easement. Staff also
noted that the revised plan does not address site furniture such as is depicted in the
photographic examples from other PUDs that were submitted. Review and approval of a
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 14 of26
final landscape plan would be required prior to final plat approval to ensure consistency
with PUD design guidelines. Exhibit 50, Preliminary Landscape Plan Auburn Forty
PUD; Exhibit 56, Memorandumfrom Jeff Dixon to the Hearing Examiner; Exhibit 1,
Staff Report, page 10.
40. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.2IC, the City of
Auburn acted as lead agency for the review of environmental impacts caused by the
proposed preliminary plat. The City issued a final Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance (MDNS) on October 13, 2005 containing 13 mitigation measures that would
reduce environmental impacts of the rezone to PUD and plat development to a point of
non-significance. The required mitigation measures include additional geotechnical
study, wetland mitigation for the off-site wetlands, floodplain compensation (in the event
that the project impacts floodplain storage capacity), water line extension requirements,
traffic circulation measures, and archeological resources measures. Exhibit 1, Staff
Report, page 13; Exhibit 7, MDNS. No appeal was filed and the MDNS became final on
November 3, 2005. Testimony of Mr. Dixon.
41. Notice of application and notice of public hearing were mailed to surrounding property
owners, posted on-site, and published in accordance with the City's code requirements.
Exhibit 2; Exhibit 3; Exhibit 4; Exhibit 5; Exhibit 6.
42. At the public hearing, a representative from the undeveloped property to the south
presented questions and concerns regarding the project. His questions pertained to the
following: whether the proposed sewer pump station would be sized to serye off-site
properties and whether latecomers' agreements would be accepted; financing for the
completion ofI Street NE between 45th and 49th Streets NE; whether site grading would
cause alterations in existing stormwater runoff flow, resulting in created wetlands; and
whether the Applicant was required to develop full or half-street frontage improvements
along the project's I Street NE frontage. Testimony of Mr. Hathaway. Both City Planning
Staff and the Applicant responded to these concerns. Testimony of Mr. Dixon; Testimony
of Mr. Mann.
43. In the present case, the use of the flexible PUD design standards would result in the
following public benefits that would not be provided under traditional subdivision of the
same property: parkland dedication above that required of a subdivision; greater diversity
in lot types and a more varied streetscape; relatively more affordable housing; and open
space equal to or greater than 20% oftotal site area, allowing for shoreline access and a
public east-west trail that would most likely not be provided by a traditional plat. Exhibit
45; Exhibit 46, Projected Profile of the Development of King County Parcel 000400-
0005; Testimony of Mr. Mann.
CONCLUSIONS
Jurisdiction:
Pursuant to Auburn City Code (ACC) 18.66, the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and
make recommendations to the City Council on applications for preliminary plat and rezones to
PUD. ACC 18.69.140; ACC 14.03.040(A); ACC 17.06.050.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 15 of26
Criteria for Review:
Rezone to PUD:
The Hearing Examiner shall only recommend approval of a rezone to PUD designation if the
record contains evidence to satisfY the following criteria established in ACC 18.69.150:
I. The rezone would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan;
2. The rezone was initiated by a party other than the City; and
3. Modifications made to the proposal by the Hearing Examiner will not result in a
more intense zone than the one requested.
In addition, the Washington State Supreme Court has established general rules for rezones
(Parkridge v, Seattle, 89 Wash.2d 454 (1978), including the requirement that "the rezone must
bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare." II
Planned Unit Development:
In order to recommend approval of a PUD, the Hearing Examiner must find that the record
contains sufficient evidence to satisfy the following criteria pursuant to ACC 18.69.150:
I. The proposal makes adequate provisions for the public health, safety, and general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways,
water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or sites for schools.
2. The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposal is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69, provides for the public
benefits required of the development ofPUDs by providing an improvement in
the quality, character, architectural and site design, housing choice and/or open
space protection over what would otherwise be attained through a development
using the existing zoning and subdivision standards.
4. The proposal conforms to the general purposes of other applicable policies or
plans which have been adopted by the City Council.
5. The approval of the PUD will have no more of an adverse impact upon the
surrounding area than any other project would have if developed using the
existing zoning standards of the zoning district the PUD is located in.
11 Parkridge v. Seattle (1978) also established a general rule that rezones could only be approved if a substantial
"change in circumstances" had occurred in the vicinity ofthe proposal. However, Washington Courts have
subsequently held that where a proposed rezone to PUD implements policies of the Comprehensive Plan, no
showing of changed circumstances is required. Bjarnson v. Kitsap County, 78 Wn, App. 840, 846 (1995).
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of A uburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUDIPreliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 16 of26
6. The PUD must be consistent with the existing and planned character of the
neighborhood, including existing zoning and comprehensive plan map
designations, and the design guidelines set forth in ACC 18.69.080(D).
Preliminary Plat:
In order to recommend approval of a preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner must find that the
record contains evidence to satisfY the following criteria pursuant to ACC 17.06.070:
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare
and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, I, and sites for schools and school grounds.
2. Conformance to the general purposes ofthe City of Auburn's Comprehensive
Plan, to the general purpose of Title 17.02, and to the general purposes of any
other applicable policies or plan which have been adopted by the City Council.
3. Conformance to the City of Auburn's zoning ordinance and any other applicable
planning or engineering standard and specifications.
4. Potential environmental impacts of the proposal have been mitigated such that the
proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse effect upon the quality of the
environment.
5. Adequate provisions have been made so that the preliminary plat will prevent or
abate public nuisances.
Conclusions Based on Findings:
1. The Applicant initiated the rezone. Finding No.8.
2. The Hearing Examiner is not recommending any change or modification to the
rezone request that will result in a more intense zone than the one requested by the
Applicant.
3. The rezone bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or
general welfare. The requested rezone would result in housing densities consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations for the site, increasing the supply and
diversity of housing stock available in the vicinity. The PUD, as conditioned, would
extend roads and utilities to an undeveloped area at the periphery of the City. The PUD
would create 7.79 acres of open space within the development including a public park
adjacent to the Green River parkway and a public trail connecting I Street NE with the
Green River shoreline. Findings Nos. 4, 6, 10, lJ, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,20,21,22,34,
35, 36, and 43.
4. The rezone, PUD, and Preliminary Plat are consistent with the City of Aubnrn
Comprehensive Plan and other applicable goals and policies. The proposed rezone,
PUD, and preliminary plat are consistent with the goals and policies of the City of
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 17 of26
Auburn's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed densities of single-family residential
development are consistent with the site's current Comprehensive Plan land use
designations of "High Density Residential" and "Single Family Residential." The project
would be consistent with Comprehensive Transportation Plan policies, particularly TR-13
regarding the provision of two points of access for developments with more than 75
dwelling units, both through off-site construction of I Street NE road and through the
provision of the boulevard with two 20-foot lanes divided by a landscaped median at the
plat entrance. Proposed stormpond facilities would provide aesthetic amenities consistent
with Policy UD-6, Findings Nos. 9, 10, 12,21, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, and 39.
5. With conditions, the proposal makes adequate provisions for the public health,
safety, and general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, water
supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, or schools. The Applicant would
extend public water and sewer to the project consistent with City design standards.
Conditions of approval would ensure that the sewer pump station is sized to provide
seryice to the undeveloped property adjacent to the south if and when it is developed in
the future and that Tract K is adequately sized to protect adjacent residential lots. On-site
portions of the buffers of off-site wetlands would be protected through compliance with
MDNS conditions of approval. Stormwater would be collected, treated, and detained on-
site prior to release in its natural drainage paths, Some of the treated stormwater runoff
would be discharged to the off-site wetlands to the north in a manner designed to mimic
pre-development flows and the remainder would be released into the existing open
channel and eventually the Green River. A condition of approval would ensure that the
stormpond designs satisfY City standards. The project would provide 7.79 acres of open
space, including 3.9 acres of public parklands providing active recreation opportunities
for the general public in addition to plat residents. The project would provide significant
off-site infrastructure improvements in the completion of I Street NE between 40th and
45th Streets NE. These improvements would provide two access routes to the project
from off-site areas for emergency and general traffic. The Applicant would dedicate
significant right-of-way along the property frontage for I Street NE improvements. The
internal plat road system would be designed and constructed consistent with City road
standards, Sidewalks on both sides of all internal roads and the public trail provided in
Tract B would provide for safe pedestrian circulation, as well as a connection to the
Green River shoreline. School children would be bussed to area schools from a bus stop
located on I Street NE near the plat entrance. Impacts to City of Kent Schools would be
mitigated by the payment of fees. Findings Nos. 6, 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
25, 26, 29. 31, 32, 34, 34, 36, and 40.
6. With conditions, the proposal provides the public benefits required of PUD
developments and is consistent with the purpose of ACC 18.69. In addition to the
provisions named in Conclusion 5, the PUD would provide public benefits that would not
be provided by a traditional plat including greater parkland dedication, more affordable
housing, and open space equal to at least 20% of total site area. In light of a possible
reduction in Tract EE to accommodate the pump station in Track K, a condition of
approval is necessary to ensure that at least 20% ofthe total site area is set aside as open
space. While Tract DD as a stand-alone tract might not represent desirable open space
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of A uburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUDIPre1lminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 18 of26
due to its size and location, nothing in the record supports a conclusion that Tract DD
should not be included as contiguous open space to the public trail in Tract B. A
condition of approval would ensure that PUD design guidelines are satisfied. Findings
Nos. 9, 13, 15, 35, 37, 38, and 43.
7. The approval of the PUD would have no more of an adverse impact on the
surrounding area than any project developed using the existing zoning standards
would have. The PUD is consistent with the existing and planned character of the
neighborhood. While the PUD would allow for a slightly higher number of dwelling
units than would be possible on the 6,000 square foot minimum lots required in the R-2
district with traditional subdivision of the site, the increase in impacts would be
imperceptible. Surrounding properties are undeveloped and have primarily residential
zoning designations. Development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning code would not negatively impact the planned character of the immediate vicinity.
Findings Nos. 3, 7, and 11.
9. As conditioned, the preliminary plat conforms to the City of Auburn's land division
and zoning ordinances and other applicable planning or engineering standards and
specifications. As proposed, the project is consistent with the development standards of
the PUD zoning district within the underlying Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designations. Conditions of approval would ensure that roads, utilities, open space, and
stormdrainage improvements conform to applicable standards. Findings Nos. 10, 12, 20,
21,22, 31, and 32.
10. The project was reviewed for compliance with SEP A and an MDNS was issued. No
appeals were filed and the MDNS became final. A condition of approval would ensure
compliance with all mitigating measures required in the October 13,2005 MDNS.
Additional conditions of approval would ensure that the off-site improvements of I Street
NE north to 45th Street have no adverse impacts on off-site wetlands and that sufficient
noise attenuation from the sewer pump station would be provided. Finding No. 40.
11. Compliance with ACC 8.12 would ensure that pnblic nuisances are prevented or
abated.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the Hearing Examiner recommends
that the requests for rezone of approximately 38.48 acres from R2 Residential to Planned Unit
Development, for approval of a Planned Unit Development, and for preliminary plat approval for
the Auburn Forty subdivision, a 236-lot single-family residential subdivision, be GRANTED,
subject to the following conditions:
PUD Conditions:
1. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall submit a legal instrument setting forth a
plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of open space, recreational areas,
private tracts, parkland, and other communally owned facilities. No such instrument
shall be acceptable until approved by the City Attorney as to its legal form and effect.
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of A uburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 19 of26
Areas proposed to meet the twenty percent (20%) open space shall be guaranteed by a
restrictive covenant or other method, describing that the space, its maintenance, and
improvement are appurtenant to the land for the benefit of the residents of the planned
unit development and adjoining property owners. The final plat shall grant easements to
the City of Auburn in all communally owned open space and park land tracts so that the
City may perform maintenance in the event of improper maintenance by the
homeowners' association. All maintenance shall adhere to City of Auburn standards.
2. Prior to approval of construction or facility extension plans, a plan for the design and
construction of traffic calming methods on the northern, east-west street must be
approved by the City Engineer. The traffic calming devices shall be completed or
financially guaranteed for installation prior to final plat approvaL
3. The Applicant shall prepare a Final Landscaping Plan that demonstrates that all
landscaping in the public rights-of-way, storm drainage tracts, sight distance tracts, and
open space tracts conform to City standards. The plan must demonstrate conformance
with standards for acceptable tree types and root barriers, etc., and must also show
coordination with utility and road improvements. The plan must also include
maintenance and conform to the standards in ACC 18.50,070. The Applicant shall
provide root deflection devices or similar mechanisms for all trees planted within five
feet of curbs, sidewalks, or pavement to ensure mature trees does not contribute to
pavement deterioration. Care should be taken by the Applicant to account for individual
lots' ingress and egress when defining the location of proposed street trees. The
landscaped median within the residential collector street shall be the responsibility of the
homeowners' association and be included in the landscaping maintenance plan and the
legal instrument assuring maintenance. The plan must be approved by the Planning
Department prior to issuance of grading, construction or facility extension approvals.
4. In order to meet subdivision requirements of ACe 17.12.260 and PUD requirements of
ACC 18.69.080(A)(2) related to dedication of recreation land and based on the
Applicant's submitted preliminary plat, the Applicant shall dedicate at least 4.18 acres of
land generally in the location identified as Tracts "B" & "E" on the Preliminary Plat
Auburn Forty PUD, Apex Engineering, 9-16-04, revised 10-18-05 and in a configuration
acceptable to the City of Auburn Parks Director.
5. Concurrent with the plat engineering/construction drawings that are typically submitted
for construction ofthe subdivision there shall also be submitted engineering/construction
and landscape drawings for the construction of park improvements in the publicly
dedicated Tract "B", The park improvements shall be approved by the City of Auburn
Parks Director prior to the approval of the grading plans or facility extension drawings
for the plat. The materials supplied and installed must be shown and meet the current
City Parks Department standards and be installed and accepted by the Parks Director
prior to any final plat approval or satisfactorily guaranteed. The plans for Tract B shall
be accompanied by plans for and coordinated with the construction of wetland buffer and
stormwater facilities on the adjacent tracts, The trail surface will be maintained by the
City and the landscaping will be maintained by the Developer and! or homeowner's
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 20 of26
association. This condition shall be part of each property owner's legal description and
title. The maintenance schedule and responsibilities shall be identified in the legal
instrument whose language shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Director prior to
final plat approval and recording. Also a maintenance easement shall be provided by the
City to the homeowner's association at the time of the final plat.
6. Concurrent with the plat engineering/construction drawings that are typically submitted
for construction of the subdivision there shall also be submitted engineering/construction
and landscape drawings for the construction of park improvements in the publicly
dedicated Tract "E". The park improvements shall be approved by the City of Auburn
Parks Director prior to the approval of the grading plans or facility extension drawings
for the plat. The materials supplied and instalh:d must be shown and meet the current
City Parks Department standards and be installed and accepted by the Parks Director
prior to any final plat approval or satisfactorily guaranteed. Also the plan shall include an
interior pathway connecting to the public sidewalk. The plan shall at a minimum include
play equipment of not less than 9,600 sq ft including fall zone. The play structure shall be
large enough to seryice at least 90 children, featuring 18 to 20 play events designed for
children from the ages of 2 to 12 years old. The park area should include but not limited
to four (4) park benches, four (4) picnic tables and one (1) garbage receptacle, The
materials will be purchased and installed by the developer. The area that will be
developed and constructed will be located west (outside) of the 200-foot shoreline
jurisdiction. Curb, gutter and sidewalks shall be provided along the street of Tract E prior
to final plat approval.
7. The developed park area within Tract Band E shall be irrigated with an automatic
irrigation system that meets the City/Park department standards. The irrigation
information shall be identified in a plan to be submitted to the City for review and
approval.
8. The Applicant shall work with the City of Auburn Parks Department and with King
County Parks and Open Space Department on locating the Green River Trail alignment
on the developer's construction drawings so as not to place play equipment or park
furnishings in the path of the potential trail (Green River Trail) that will be constructed in
the future by the county or successor agency.
9. Pedestrian/ornamental street lights shall be provided along the interior streets of the plat.
The style of the lights shall be consistent with city standards or an ornamental style
approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall review the spacing and location
of the lights to ensure that adequate lighting is provided along the surface of all streets
and any adjacent sidewalks. The lighting standards shall be coordinated with lighting
standards provided in open spaces.
10. The designs of the homes shall be at least equivalent to the illustrations in The Auburn
North Forty Homeowner's Association Architectural Guidelines for the Construction of
New Homes (Exhibit 53) and Polygon and OakRidge Homes Elevations and Floor Plans.
Revisions to the CC&Rs and an architectural design plan shall be reviewed and approved
Findings. Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 21 of26
by the Planning Director prior to submittal of building permits (for model homes) or final
plat, providing additional specifications for the following items:
. Overall coordination of building design in light of the fact that the homes could be
developed by multiple homebuilders
. Modulation of roof and wall fayade
. Opportunity to stagger the placement of homes on the lots to avoid continuous
rows
. The use of different materials on each house & consistency of siding materials on
sides ofthe residence
. Variation in facades and rooflines
. Number of different building designs and dispersion of building designs
. Number of parking spaces provided on each lot
. Colors Idesigns for the buildings
II. Prior to approval grading, construction, or facility extension permits, the type and
placement of landscaping shall be approved by the Planning Director. The Final
landscape design shall be generally consistent with the: Preliminary Landscape Plan
Auburn Fortv PUD, Bradley Design Group, dated October 31, 2005 with the following
revisions:
. A void landscape trees in front of storm pond maintenance accesses
. Avoid removal or disturbance within the 200-foot shoreline area
. Ensure that landscaping is coordinated with and identifies sight distance
requirements
. Ensure that Tract boundaries, i.e. Tract N, agree with the plat
12. The PUD requires that open spaces be enhanced as an amenity. The PUD will also
require ornamental/pedestrian type lighting, furniture in the open space areas, and that
entrance signs and fencing will be coordinated, Lighting, furniture and signs shall be of
consistent design and material throughout the project. Any signs shall be a low
monument style with lighting and accenting landscaping. The signs shall generally be
consistent with the plan accompanying the E-mail from Sean Martin to Jeff Dixon
transmitting a sign detail, December 17, 2004 (Exhibit 40). The number, style, placement
and landscaping to be approved by the Planning Director as part of the final landscaping
plan, The permanent maintenance of the lighting furniture and signs within any public
tracts or open spaces shall be addressed as part of the instrument setting forth a plan or
manner of permanent care.
13. Fencing shall be of a compatible material, style and color throughout the PUD. The
Planning Director shall approve of a fencing plan or fencing shall be addressed as part of
the required landscaping plan. The fence designs shall be at least equivalent to the photos
of open rail fences accompanying the Letter from Apex Engineering response to
Completeness Letter (environmental checklist application supplement) dated 3-25-05.
Specifically, consistent fence treatments shall be provided in the following locations:
. Fencing between lots and Tract B & E (park land tracts)
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of A uburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone!PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 22 of26
. Fencing between individual lots and Tract A and Tract F (stormwater facility
tracts)
. Fencing or other separation between lots and the open space tracts including Tract
N
. Fencing along southern boundary of project site
The permanent maintenance ofthe fencing adjacent to any public tracts or open spaces shall
be addressed as part of the legal instrument setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care.
14. The Applicant has proposed that certain Lots shall be limited to alley access, i.e. no
vehicle access except by the alley. The final plat shall include a requirement that Lots 65
through 108 and Lots 144 through 157 (or equivalent number oflots should the plat be
modified and lots renumbered for any reason) shall be developed with the main building
entrance oriented to the street and vehicle entrance from the public alley. Additionally,
Lots I through 5, and Lots 30 through 36 and Lots 211 through 223 (of their equivalents
should the plat be modified and lots renumbered for any reason) shall be developed with
the main building entrance oriented to the residential collector street and the vehicle
entrance from the local residential street.
15. The approval of the PUD is only valid upon the approval and execution by the Auburn
City Council of the associated preliminary plat, File No. PLT04-0009.
16. While Tracts A and F will be publicly dedicated for stormwater management, in order to
meet open space objectives of the PUD the tracts will require more extensive landscaping
treatment and more intensive maintenance. As a result, the HOA must maintain the
portions of the tracts outside the fenced pond boundary, or ifno fence if provided, outside
the 10-year storm water surface elevation and the public right-of-way. The maintenance
shall be prescribed in the legal instrument that addresses maintenance of open space
tracts.
17. Prior to issuance of grading, construction, or facility extension approvals, the Applicant
shall provide construction plans and cross sections for review meeting city standards for
the proposed storm water facilities located within Tracts A and F that and demonstrate
coordination with landscaping plans. Tracts A and F may need to be modified and or
enlarged to meet the design and construction standards to accommodate the calculated
storage volumes and required aesthetics for storm ponds constructed in residential areas.
18. The Applicant has submitted an Auburn Forty PUD Conceptual Sanitary Sewer Lift
Station Exhibit, Apex Engineering, 10-27-05, that demonstrates the Proposed Tract K is
not sufficient to accommodate needed pump station facilities. As a result, the adjacent
Tract EE will require reduction in area. The developer should be aware of the City may
require the pump station to incorporate variable speed drive (VFD) motors in the sewer
pump station since the initial flows to the pump station will be minimal. This
consideration is important because the station will serye a larger area in the future and
VFD motors will handle the initial lower flows better. The use of this pump type would
limit the needed expansion of the tract.
Findings. Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary P1at- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 23 of26
19, Prior to issuance of grading permits or facility extension approvals, the Applicant shall
provide a written comparison between the placement of the sewer force main as
identified in the Auburn Forty PUD Preliminary Plat. Conceotual Utility Plan, Apex
Engineering, 10-20-05 and the placement of the force main along public right of way and
then between Lots 41 and 42, Lot 29 and finally between Lots 9 and 10. The discussion
must compare the possible loss of two lots with the layout of a direct force main and
increased open space. The goal of the discussion is to reduce the number and severity of
the force main bends as shown in the conceptual plan to reduce maintenance, realize
public utility efficiencies and reduce net public operational costs consistent with PUD
requirements at ACC l8.69.090(B).
20. Tracts X and Y shall be owned by the HOA and encumbered by a native growth
protection easement conveyed to the City of Auburn to meet minimum buffer
requirements of the CAO, ACC 16.10 and PUD open space requirements.
21. Given the relatively narrow frontages of the proposed single-family residential lots and
the impact on pedestrians (and wheelchairs and strollers) from elevation changes due to a
series of closely spaced driveways, the local residential road cross section shown on the
preliminary plat shall be revised to show the landscape planting strip abutting the curb on
both sides of the street,
22. Prior to approval of construction drawings or facility extensions, the Applicant shall
demonstrate that twenty percent (20%) of the site's buildable area is set aside as open
space meeting the definition of open space per ACC l8.69.080(A)(l) as determined by
the Planning Director.
23. The maintenance responsibility for the landscaping within the medians would be by the
HOA by licensed and bonded professional maintenance firm under a right-of-way use
permit.
Preliminary Plat Conditions:
1. Per section 10.03.1.4 of city Design Standards, sight distance is required to be measured
at a point 14.5 feet from the travel way. The Auburn Forty PUD Preliminary Plat, Sight
Distance Triangle Exhibit Sheets I and 2 of2, Apex Engineering, 10-27-05 shows sight
distance at intersections as being measured at 10 feet from the travel way, This is an
acceptable departure from standards for a local residential road intersection. However,
intersections 1,6 and 7 as indicated in the sight plan drawings submitted are collector or
arterial road intersections and shall evaluate sight distance at 14.5 feet per the city
standards. The Applicant shall resubmit a corrected sight distance analyses for review
and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading, construction or facility
extension approvals. As a result of the requested analysis, the plat shall be modified to
ensure that City sight distance standards are met and that all land within the property
boundaries that occurs within the sight distance triangles is dedicated as right-of-way.
The dedication is shall be accomplished on the Final Plat, if not conveyed in advance.
This may result in minor changes to the plat design to ensure that all applicable
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 24 of26
requirements are satisfied.
Also, per section 10.03.1.4 of city Design Standards, the speed assumed for the sight
distance analysis at intersection 1, the main plat entrance to I Street NE, as shown on the
exhibit submitted, shall use 35 mph for the design speed, The Applicant shall resubmit a
corrected sight distance analyses for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of grading or facility extension approvals. As a result of the requested analysis,
the plat shall be modified to ensure that city sight distance standards are met and that all
land within the property boundaries that is located within sight distance triangles is
dedicated as right of way on the Final Plat, if not already conveyed in advance. This may
result in minor changes to the plat design to ensure that all applicable requirements are
satisfied.
2. The Applicant has proposed that the off-site extension of I Street NE will not result in
wetland filling or impacts beyond those identified on the Port's property and addressed in
the Final MDNS. Prior to approval of the grading permit or facility extensions for half
street improvements or off -site extension of I Street NE, unless it is demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Planning Director that the I Street NE half-street improvements will
not result in wetland filling or impacts, a final wetland mitigation plan shall be prepared
and submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director and Public Works
Directors. The plan shall be approved prior to the issuance of the subsequent grading
permits or other construction permits. If applicable, the plan shall identify the amount of
wetland impacts associated with extension of I Street NE and any associated wetland
mitigation in accordance with the AC 16.10.
3. Notice of the future extension of the project's dead end streets shall be recorded on the
face of the final plat. In addition to this notice, adequate on-site signage of such future
traffic improvements shall be provided as directed by the City Engineer.
4. Prior to Final Plat approval the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer that the site's existing water well and site septic system have been abandoned in
accordance with state and local regulations and a water right transfer to the City's well
field will need to be completed and filed with the Department of Ecology.
5. The project shall not at any time disturb or encroach upon the 200-foot shoreline buffer
of the Green River.
6. The plat shall implement the thirteen (13) Conditions ofthe Final Mitigated
Determination of Non-Significance (FMDNS) (File Number SEP04-0037) issued
October 13,2005. The conditions prescribe geotechnical procedures, wetland
mitigation, floodplain compensation, archeological and cultural resources, road
improvements, traffic circulation and water line extension requirements.
7. Because the proposed off-site extension of I Street NE that is needed to provide access to
the plat will result in additional imperyious surface and storm water runoff, prior to the
issuance of any grading or facility extension approvals, the Applicant shall provide plans
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 25 of26
detailing off-site storm drainage improvements including water quality treatment for the
required I St. NE extension.
8. Because the proposed frontage improvements ofI Street NE will result in additional
imperyious surface and storm water runoff, prior to the issuance of any grading or facility
extension approvals, the Applicant shall provide plans for review detailing drainage
improvements for the half-street improvement; along the plat frontage. Water quantity
control and water quality treatment for the imperyious surfaces or an equivalent area or
discharge shall be managed within the proposed on-site storm drainage pond facility.
9. The median at far southern end of the Plat on the collector road shall be foreshortened
and designed to permit vehicle turnaround. This shall be accomplished prior to approval
of any construction drawings.
10. All alleys are public and shall be identified as public on the plat. This shall be
accomplished prior to approval of any construction drawings.
11. No direct residential Lot access shall be allowed from the proposed lots to the collector
street within the plat.
12. No direct residential Lot access shall be allowed from the proposed lots to the arterial
street (I Street NE).
13, Prior to approval of construction or facility extension plans, in order to avoid a sight
distance/safety concern the Applicant shall restrict direct access to the street from the
alley between Lots 83 and 84 by a means of traffic control acceptable to the City
Engineer.
14. In order to ensure the accurate placement of homes/structures in relationship to the
setbacks required from property lines, easements, or other similar features associated
with a lot, the City's Building Official may require that all applicable corners of the
structure be surveyed and staked prior to the pouring of footings or foundations,
15. Prior to approval of construction or facility extension plans, the Applicant shall submit
manufacturer specifications or a noise study for review and approval by the City
Engineer that demonstrates that noise associated with the sanitary sewer pump station
will meet state noise standards. Noise attenuation measures may be required to achieve
consistency.
Decided this
day of January 2006.
Driscoll & Hunter
City of Auburn Hearing Examiners
By:
Theodore Paul Hunter
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
City of Auburn Hearing Examiner
Auburn 40 Rezone/PUD/Preliminary Plat- PLT04-0009/PUD04-0002
page 26 of26
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 3989
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE GEORGE E.
KING DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 40, IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH,
RANGE 5 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FENCE LINE AS IT
EXISTED ON DECEMBER 17, 1979, AS DESCRIBED IN BOUNDARY LINE
AGREEMENT, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7912170640; ALSO
EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY STATUTORY
WARRANTY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7409060426;
TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF
THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM LYING NORTHERLY OF THE
BOUNDARY LINE DESCRIBED IN BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT RECORDED
UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7903021118; ALSO
EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE
BOUNDARY LINE DESCRIBED IN BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT RECORDED
UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7903021118.